I'm baffled. You're all over the place
(kidding, but that's about how y'all have been addressing me). This is a distinction some ignore. Calvinism does not deny human free agency. It is an argument you will often see, though.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where Is Free Will?
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
- Status
(kidding, but that's about how y'all have been addressing me). This is a distinction some ignore. Calvinism does not deny human free agency. It is an argument you will often see, though.
you are not a straight Calvinist, You should review your beliefs on the rest of it and go whip whoever taught you that lie
Read Calvin's treaties on Free Will,
Generally only Soft-Determinists attempt to hold to the Compatibilist theories of "free agency".
The reason I do is twofold. First, I like Edwards. More than that, though, is that I believe that both free-will and determinism (non-compatibilists) view the divine will as if God were a man, only bigger. I believe everything is predetermined but that our choices are absolutely free.
I'm baffled. You're all over the place
But, then aren't you the guy that claims Arminius was a Calvinist???
Last edited:
He wasn't far from being one. Not far at all.But, then aren't you the guy that claims Arminius was a Calvinist???
Half the battle in these discussions is agreement on terms. If two parties do not concur on what a word or phrase means, how can they be expected to have a meaningful dialog? One of the resources I like to use is Donald K. McKim's Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. It provides detailed definitions of theological terms. Of free will, it states, "A loose rendering of (Lat.) liberum arbitrium. The terms seeks to describe the free choice of the will which all persons possess. Theological debates have arisen over the ways by which and the extent to choose good over evil, and hence one's "free will."" Neither side of the debate disagrees that men make free choices. The real debate occurs when we discuss God's call and the individual's response to that call. Is the call of God effectual? In other words, once the Holy Spirit calls a person does the person have the ability to reject that call? Calvinists or Monergists would look to passages such as Acts 13:48; Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13 et al. as positing that those whom the Holy Spirit calls will always and unequivocally come to faith in Christ. That really is the argument in a nutshell from the Calvinist perspective.
Luke 7
30But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
I could say self explanatory. Notice they went against their purpose. God's purpose for them obviously was not toast in hell for eternity. Their purpose was to be baptized and saved and it was rejected.
If there is NO FREE WILL, they could not reject God's purpose at all.
Luke 13
1Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.2And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4“Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
6And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. 7“And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ 8“And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; 9and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’”
1John 5
10The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
The guy who makes God out to be a liar does so why? Because he does not believe in the testimony. Whats the testimony?
"11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
Well wouldn't the reprobate be telling the truth rather than a lie? Because according to scripture the TRUTH being rejected is there was eternal life given to said reprobate in his son.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
You might want to read up on Calvin some more if you believe that. That being said, the doctrine of total depravity did not even first get systematically articulated by Calvin. The first systemization of it, that I am aware of it, was 1,000 years earlier by Augustine.
I should clarify my original post. Free will to choose God as opposed to sin.
No. I do not claim it, I state the fact. When he died the only counsel decision was that his view fell within orthodox Calvinism (as a minority position). The Synod of Dort was post- Arminius, who was a Calvinistic professor at his death. (History, bro., history).But, then aren't you the guy that claims Arminius was a Calvinist???
But when we speak on Calvinism in our context we are usually dealing with "TULIP". By definition a Bsptist cannot be a Calvinist using it as a historicsl term (where Calvin prefered "Redormed").
And there are various ideas within TULIP Calvinists. I agree with Edwards position on the will. Some Calvinists who may not hold his philosophical view consider him a goodcexample of Calvinism. Others deny he was a "real" Calvinist.
I know.. we were using the popular terms. You disagree with Calvin on free will,
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
How so? Please cite sources for proof.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No citation. No proof. Goodbye.
you [edited] reveal in your error compared to your own error.
You are correct to believe in free will, but do not call yourself Calvinist, and then disagree with common Calvinist beliefs
It is like another poster using your name
Last edited by a moderator:
May I ask an aside question.
Theres quite a few calvinists in here and I'm getting all sorts of different vibes on how we're describing free will.
So may I ask.
In calvinism. Did God predestinate and predetermine that Adam would fall in the garden.
Or
did Adam do it of his own free choice and God simply forknew the events and called them acceptable.
Did God move the chess piece or oberserve the chess board.
When I read piper he sounds like God moved the chess piece. But I'm getting different impressions from the crowd in here.
All the best,
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
Theres quite a few calvinists in here and I'm getting all sorts of different vibes on how we're describing free will.
So may I ask.
In calvinism. Did God predestinate and predetermine that Adam would fall in the garden.
Or
did Adam do it of his own free choice and God simply forknew the events and called them acceptable.
Did God move the chess piece or oberserve the chess board.
When I read piper he sounds like God moved the chess piece. But I'm getting different impressions from the crowd in here.
All the best,
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
In reformed circles, you have Supra and Infra(Sub) Lapsarian views. I lean towards Supra....and here’s why.
The most atrocious thing that happened in history was the crucifixion of our Lord. God did not just idly set by and watch it unfold, but was the driving force behind it. From the capture, the mocking, spiting, tearing the beard from His face, the crown of thorns pressed upon His head, being passed back and forth from Herod to Pilate, the beating, and crucifying. That’s what foreknowledge in Acts 2:23 is referring to. Foreknowledge in that verse is prognosis, and in this instance it’s means pre-arrangement. It’s also used in regards to the elect in 1 Peter 1:2.
Then look at Joseph. Sold into slavery. Gains favor with Potiphar. His wife tries to fool around with him and he leaves. He leaves his garment, she lies and tells Potiphar he tried to force himself on her. Gets jailed. Interprets two dreams. Gains freedom ~ 2 years later after interpreting Pharaoh’s dream. Ends up saving his family from the famine. Proclaims that what his brothers did for evil, God intended it for good.
In both of these, God was the driving force.
Now on to Adam. God planted the TOK in the Garden and gave Satan access to it. If this was not part of His plan, then what purpose did it accomplish? The most wicked acts done by fallen ppl all fall with God’s decreed will. If these wicked acts don’t serve a purpose, then these have no purpose at all.
Many ppl tend to lean towards deism in some way. Deism teaches there is a god who created all we see. Starts it spinning then sets back and watches things unfold. Here’s why I say ppl lean towards deism...ppl say God allows things to happen. That’s saying He steps backs and allows it to happen. That’s deism at worst, deistic at best.
God decreed the fall and used others to make sure it happened. Also, remember it was God who sent a evil spirit upon Saul. God stirred up Pul’s and Tilgath-pilneser‘s heart to carry away some of Israel’s ppl.
- Status